Verizon Wireless Sued Over V710 Bluetooth Limitations

Relax and think this one through...

I think the people who post here should relax a seconda and think this one through...

Obviously this is a hot topic with nearly 50 messages on this news article. Why? T-mobile got hacked and secret service files were in the open, but techy nerds (no offense as I'm one of them) have such contempt for VzW, they are more concerned with this class action suit about the features of one particular phone model..?

Let's look at the facts...

"connect to your PC or PDA whenever and wherever you want"

This statement as advertised requires what? The phone to be capable to "connect to your PC or PDA," right? Well, it does...The only thing that's disabled is OBEX - three bluetooth profiles are enabled, and a PAN is utilized, therefore, t...(continues)

Stevo2k4 said:I think the people who post here should relax a seconda and think this one through...

Obviously this is a hot topic with nearly 50 messages on this news article. Why? T-mobile got hacked and secret service files were in the open, but techy nerds (no offense as I'm one of them) have such contempt for VzW, they are more concerned with this class action suit about the features of one particular phone model..?

Let's look at the facts...

"connect to your PC or PDA whenever and wherever you want"

This statement as advertised requires what? The phone to be capable to "connect to your PC or PDA," right? Well, it does...The only thing that's disabled is OBEX - three bluetooth profiles are enabled,

I feel like this suit is like the suits of people who ignore the Surgeon Generals warning on a label, smoke for years, and then sue cause they are gonna die. People sue, people win or lose. It happens. Just save the lawsuits that involve more money, health problems, and not luxury tools of convenience

Buyer beware is true but the fact that so many people seem to be clueless tells me that Verizon was at least not being 100% truthful (not just b/c of buyer ignorance).

Why say "connect to your PC or PDA whenever and wherever you want" without having some sort of asterics saying via our service, charges may apply or note: OBEX profile for bluetooth is disabled? Seems shady to me. Yes they are around to make a profit but they have been playing up the bluetooth'ness about this phone without being totally honest.

I contacted Motorola directly a while ago asking if I could buy a generic v710 from them and their response was that I had to choose a service plan b/c each phone was different for each carrier, even though ...(continues)

staiano said:Buyer beware is true but the fact that so many people seem to be clueless tells me that Verizon was at least not being 100% truthful (not just b/c of buyer ignorance).

Why say "connect to your PC or PDA whenever and wherever you want" without having some sort of asterics saying via our service, charges may apply or note: OBEX profile for bluetooth is disabled? Seems shady to me. Yes they are around to make a profit but they have been playing up the bluetooth'ness about this phone without being totally honest.

I contacted Motorola directly a while ago asking if I could buy a generic v710 from them and their response was that I had to choose a service plan b/c each phone was differ

Under Anti trust there are many different facets. One is the monopoly and from what my friend the lawyer told me is others include practices which in any other business would be called deceptive. Since Verizon is a multy state company it would fall under this..... Not exactly sure but this is what I was told.....

sciguy37 said:Under Anti trust there are many different facets. One is the monopoly and from what my friend the lawyer told me is others include practices which in any other business would be called deceptive. Since Verizon is a multy state company it would fall under this..... Not exactly sure but this is what I was told.....

Yeah... I'm a little confused about all of this anti-trust stuff you're mentioning as well. If you have a link to somewhere I can read more about it, I love to learn new things...

My point was simply that salepeople use half-truths all of the time to sell things. It's just reality.

~Steve

That violates the ethics that we all want to say we have. No, the truth does not need to be compromised to make a sale. The problem with the wireless industry is that phones are sold at retail stores. Most retail sales people are abysmally trained. I know I try to train them.

Teaching salespeople to find out the customer's wants and needs and to know enough about the product to help them make an intelligent decision is difficult. When I shop competitors stores and kiosks I find that their people are often trained to misrepresent, that is that they wholeheartedly believe th...(continues)

Because at one point when the store I work for was a Verizon dealer (unfortunately), I've got a large disagreement with what you're trying to say here. When I would have a handful of customers ask me a question that I or none of my coworkers knew the answer to, I would call customer service and get my answers there. Time and time again we were told that it was a Motorola issue and that they were waiting for an update from them. It was Verizon's advertising that misled the consumer, not the misleading information that they provided. It's like the blind leading the blind, since Verizon's training for indirect stores is somewhere between atroicous to nonexistant, let alone the undercutting of pricing and commissions they do to the indirect ...(continues)

jramossteel said:*************Nicely put but the point is, there must be some type of a chance there or the suit would not be going through.

True... there is a chance... the suit has been filed... there's also a chance the suit gets dismissed quickly. The purpose of the suit being filed may only be to get some bad publicity for VzW... if that's the case - then the plaintiffs achieved that objective...

And, no offense really, but do you know how many frivolous cases are on the docket country-wide that have no chance... I won't even name any, though there are many humorous ones (and some websites dedicated to posting them).

Stevo2k4 said:I think the people who post here should relax a seconda and think this one through...

Obviously this is a hot topic with nearly 50 messages on this news article. Why? T-mobile got hacked and secret service files were in the open, but techy nerds (no offense as I'm one of them) have such contempt for VzW, they are more concerned with this class action suit about the features of one particular phone model..?

Let's look at the facts...

"connect to your PC or PDA whenever and wherever you want"

This statement as advertised requires what? The phone to be capable to "connect to your PC or PDA," right? Well, it does...The only thing that's disabled is OBEX -

sciguy37 said:If it goes to trial how are they ever going to find a jury that has not heard of the case, been screwed by a Cell company, or want to get back at big BELL.... Good luck

This post is a joke, right? of probably 100 or so people I know personally that have cell phones guess how many use BT? close to ZERO. What do you think the percentage of cell users to BT users is. Miniscule at best. There will be plenty of jurors to choose from. And if they're good jurors, they won't predispose their opinions based on whether or not they've been "screwed by a Cell company." At least, that's how it should work.

sciguy37 said:If it goes to trial how are they ever going to find a jury that has not heard of the case, been screwed by a Cell company, or want to get back at big BELL.... Good luck

This post is a joke, right? of probably 100 or so people I know personally that have cell phones guess how many use BT? close to ZERO. What do you think the percentage of cell users to BT users is. Miniscule at best. There will be plenty of jurors to choose from. And if they're good jurors, they won't predispose their opinions based on whether or not they've been "screwed by a Cell company." At least, that's how it should work.

Go watch the movie Runaway Jury..... Then think again..... Its not about the BT, Its about Verizon and their deceptive practices. Did you hear about the Audiovox 9900??? Verizon took it out of their collection because Audiovox had their Phone tools that would sync with the computer so Verizon ditched the phone without a word.

sciguy37 said:Go watch the movie Runaway Jury..... Then think again..... Its not about the BT, Its about Verizon and their deceptive practices. Did you hear about the Audiovox 9900??? Verizon took it out of their collection because Audiovox had their Phone tools that would sync with the computer so Verizon ditched the phone without a word.

First on the Audiovox 9900, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Perhaps you could be more specific. VzW does sell the Audiovox 9900, but it's not a BT phone. I'm not sure what you mean Verizon ditched the phone without a word. They sell the phone. Check their website.

Check website again.... I just did.... There is the 8910 but not the 9900... they have it in the store but when you say you want it as I did they say its no longer available and steer you to the 265 or the 6100....

and runaway jury was a great movie but it can happen... with the best intentions we can have a runaway jury.

sciguy37 said:Check website again.... I just did.... There is the 8910 but not the 9900... they have it in the store but when you say you want it as I did they say its no longer available and steer you to the 265 or the 6100....

Yes, I can see that the item is not on the website - you're right about that. The phone is available in select stores, but is currently in a "close out" status, meaning availability is limited stock. It's listed among others such as the audiovox 8600 and 8900 models, Motorola v60s, the Nokia 3589i, the blackberry 6750 and more...

If there's something you know of that we do not, please share with us. Is there a link to any document stating that VzW discontinued the model bec

sciguy37 said:Check website again.... I just did.... There is the 8910 but not the 9900... they have it in the store but when you say you want it as I did they say its no longer available and steer you to the 265 or the 6100....

and runaway jury was a great movie but it can happen... with the best intentions we can have a runaway jury.

sciguy37 said:Go watch the movie Runaway Jury..... Then think again..... Its not about the BT, Its about Verizon and their deceptive practices. Did you hear about the Audiovox 9900??? Verizon took it out of their collection because Audiovox had their Phone tools that would sync with the computer so Verizon ditched the phone without a word.

Still bitching about how the American consumer shouldn't be held accountable for anything, huh?

Just pointing out the difference between this post regarding a frivolous class action suit and a matter of national security documents exposed.

The point is the nerds who post on this site, in a way, demonstrated the piddly crap they really care about (don't be offended I"m one of those nerds). There are now over 200 posts on this news item in less than 24 hours, but the T-Mobile U.S. secret service agent's e-mail being hacked and over 400 americans personal info being exposed.... well... only 16 people had a response to that...

Verizon is one of, if not the, most expensive cell phone companies. They have enough subscriber base that they can easily afford the decrease in Brew usage created by a fully functional bluetooth phone. Smaller carriers allow it, and still remain profitable. I think this is a just a case of a company going too far to empty the pockets of comsumers.

BigRob said:Verizon is one of, if not the, most expensive cell phone companies. They have enough subscriber base that they can easily afford the decrease in Brew usage created by a fully functional bluetooth phone. Smaller carriers allow it, and still remain profitable. I think this is a just a case of a company going too far to empty the pockets of comsumers.

I whole-heartedly agree...

That doesn't mean they have to... 42.1 million people as of the end of 3Q, 2004 didn't think they had to...

But it's not like all 42 million are going out to buy the v710 for the bluetooth (see the post from the person who knows barely anyone who uses bluetooth).

Remember in order for a user to send a BREW app to another person (and in theory cheat) it has to be usable so both people would need the v710. My SE z600 doesn't care about a BREW app, but a contact, sure.

In the end does the bad press and money to fight the suit outway the money loss they would have lost? Maybe, maybe not.

Being a geek myself I know I have stayed away from Verizon for years b/c of their lack of bluetooth phones. I am sure there are a few others like me out there.

staiano said:But it's not like all 42 million are going out to buy the v710 for the bluetooth (see the post from the person who knows barely anyone who uses bluetooth).

Remember in order for a user to send a BREW app to another person (and in theory cheat) it has to be usable so both people would need the v710. My SE z600 doesn't care about a BREW app, but a contact, sure.

In the end does the bad press and money to fight the suit outway the money loss they would have lost? Maybe, maybe not.

Being a geek myself I know I have stayed away from Verizon for years b/c of their lack of bluetooth phones. I am sure there are a few others like me out there.

You're right, and I'm sure there are many others like you out there. I'm one of them, I don't use VzW personally. But people like you and me, and the other geeks are miniscule in the big picture, really...

~Steve

I agree so the whole worry about bluetooth and it's uses seems like such a drop in the bucket for verizon to act (what seems to be) very shady.Most of my friends have no clue what bluetooth does or can do, (besides what I have told them I use it for), even the people that are tech savy.

You're right, and I'm sure there are many others like you out there. I'm one of them, I don't use VzW personally. But people like you and me, and the other geeks are miniscule in the big picture, really...

~Steve

I agree so the whole worry about bluetooth and it's uses seems like such a drop in the bucket for verizon to act (what seems to be) very shady.Most of my friends have no clue what bluetooth does or can do, (besides what I have told them I use it for), even the people that are tech savy.

You're right, and I'm sure there are many others like you out there. I'm one of them, I don't use VzW personally. But people like you and me, and the other geeks are miniscule in the big picture, really...

~Steve

I agree so the whole worry about bluetooth and it's uses seems like such a drop in the bucket for verizon to act (what seems to be) very shady.Most of my friends have no clue what bluetooth does or can do, (besides what I have told them I use it for), even the people that are tech savy.

I whole-heartedly agree.

A few years ago nobody cared about anything a phone could do ...(continues)

Aleq said:A few years ago nobody cared about anything a phone could do other than make a call--but as time goes on today's edgy geeks-only techie toy becomes tomorrow's Joe Sixpack gotta-have. With that in mind, this case becomes important because it sends a clear message about how we WANT new technology to be implemented and supported, and it shapes the business models of all the wireless carriers. If consumers, both by indirect means (gravitating toward companies whose attitudes toward new tech toys are wide open and invite use and experimentation) and direct ones (suing companies who wilfully attempt to hinder and block the implementation and use of new technologies) make it clear how we want companies to behave, it

Aleq said:A few years ago nobody cared about anything a phone could do other than make a call--but as time goes on today's edgy geeks-only techie toy becomes tomorrow's Joe Sixpack gotta-have. With that in mind, this case becomes important because it sends a clear message about how we WANT new technology to be implemented and supported, and it shapes the business models of all the wireless carriers. If consumers, both by indirect means (gravitating toward companies whose attitudes toward new tech toys are wide open and invite use and experimentation) and direct ones (suing companies who wilfully attempt to hinder and block the implementation and use of new technologies) make it clear

I recall that at one time TV was considered to be "just a fad" and would never replace radio and movies as a major entertainment medium. As I said, today's techie toy is tomorrow's commonplace item, and can we agree that if the US had adopted the UK's approach to TV (minimal state run channels, licenses to own a TV, etc.) we would probably not today be the leading exporter of entertainment in the world? The means and freedoms of how a technology are implemented are of crucial importance to the future, and just because you don't see that right now doesn't mean that it's not a valid concern.

Aleq said:I recall that at one time TV was considered to be "just a fad" and would never replace radio and movies as a major entertainment medium. As I said, today's techie toy is tomorrow's commonplace item, and can we agree that if the US had adopted the UK's approach to TV (minimal state run channels, licenses to own a TV, etc.) we would probably not today be the leading exporter of entertainment in the world? The means and freedoms of how a technology are implemented are of crucial importance to the future, and just because you don't see that right now doesn't mean that it's not a valid concern.

So the fact that anyone with half a brain could simply do an internet search to see that this particular phon...(continues)

Another thing we can do, as adults, is to use our resources to persuade reluctant companies to comply with our wishes as consumers. If a company has crossed a line into deceptive or misleading business practices, we have additional recourse to the law to correct it. You may not like this, personally, but it's not your call. The purpose of law is to set, clarify, amplify and implement precedents according to the changing needs of society. As such, if a company is found in breach of law in its business practices, it will be forced to comply. If it has not, then those findings will become part of the precedent and law, and will then influence further test cases regarding how technology is implemented. It would be lovely, in a perfect worl...(continues)

Aleq said:Another thing we can do, as adults, is to use our resources to persuade reluctant companies to comply with our wishes as consumers. If a company has crossed a line into deceptive or misleading business practices, we have additional recourse to the law to correct it. You may not like this, personally, but it's not your call. The purpose of law is to set, clarify, amplify and implement precedents according to the changing needs of society. As such, if a company is found in breach of law in its business practices, it will be forced to comply. If it has not, then those findings will become part of the precedent and law, and will then influence further test cases regarding how technology is implemented. It wou

Caveat emptor... Buyers are responsible for the research and their purchases... True, but that does not mean that a company should cover things up like unavailable features. I just think that they should have worded things differently. Personally. But that's just it, an opinion. And that is what a forum is based on, opinions. SO we all can continue to argue on this, but I don't think any amount of arguing will change the opinions of the people on this forum. I think that has been established by the 300+ previous posts.

jramossteel said:True, but that does not mean that a company should cover things up like unavailable features.

So you as a product manufacturer would showcase your product by telling the world what features it DOESNT have? Riiiiiiiiiiight

*******************************************In this specific case yes. If I wanted to avoid bad publicity like this. Also think about it this way... If you sell a video capable phone, you advise someone how long the video clips are able to be? Riiiiiight? So to say to someone that the phone has bluetooth but does not have OBEX is not so much different? Riiiiiight?

Don't get me wrong... I beleive that people should do research before buying something. I also believe that people shoudl read their owners manuals before soming into a store with a million and one questions on how to use something. I also believe that a consumer should use it's right to return something when it is not what it is stated... I wholeheartedly believe these things, but I also believe that if a company is going to offer something that they should be open about it. I work in the industry and I would never lead someone to beleieve that something could do a "task" that it could not... I am not saying that VzW did... I am just stating that the advertising is a bit misleading. I think anyone that realized that the phone could not d...(continues)

jramossteel said:Caveat emptor... Buyers are responsible for the research and their purchases... True, but that does not mean that a company should cover things up like unavailable features. I just think that they should have worded things differently. Personally. But that's just it, an opinion. And that is what a forum is based on, opinions. SO we all can continue to argue on this, but I don't think any amount of arguing will change the opinions of the people on this forum. I think that has been established by the 300+ previous posts.

There are certain things I won't abide, and one of them's not taking responsibility for the decisions you make. I knew that the v710 wouldn't support OBEX months be...(continues)

muchdrama said:Okay. Perhaps I'll use a bullhorn. There. Were. No. Deceptive. Practices. Some schmuck decided he didn't like the consequences of not doing his homework on a purchase. Verizon has every right in the world to build their business model exactly like they want. If they want to put BREW in every damn phone they want...they can. YOU, as a consumer, don't have to buy any product they produce. If you don't want a bluetooth phone that doesn't necessarily support every bluetooth profile in the world...go buy a Cingular phone. The truth is, besides phone dorks like ourselves, people use the headset function and the headset function only. Ever hear of caveat emptor?

BigRob said:Verizon is one of, if not the, most expensive cell phone companies. They have enough subscriber base that they can easily afford the decrease in Brew usage created by a fully functional bluetooth phone. Smaller carriers allow it, and still remain profitable. I think this is a just a case of a company going too far to empty the pockets of comsumers.

Oh yeah, by the way, haven't you ever heard the saying "you get what you pay for?"

One VzW subscriber put it to me in this form: "It's like cars, you have Mercedes and then you have Volkswagon Bugs... Volkswagon Bugs are fine and they get you around, but I'd rather drive the Mercedes..."

What is your deal??? Why are you so chipper abouta company ripping off hard working american people? You must be a bleeding heart liberal. Your statement just proves how uneducated Verizon subscribers are. They are not "world class" There phones suck, and here in Olando,FL their service sucks too. In case you aven't noticed, the "world class" people are infatuated with things. Expensive, nicelooking things with all the bells and whistles. The "world cLass person" would not have Verizon. My sister had a nicer toy phone in kindergarten.

BigRob said:What is your deal??? Why are you so chipper abouta company ripping off hard working american people? You must be a bleeding heart liberal. Your statement just proves how uneducated Verizon subscribers are. They are not "world class" There phones suck, and here in Olando,FL their service sucks too. In case you aven't noticed, the "world class" people are infatuated with things. Expensive, nicelooking things with all the bells and whistles. The "world cLass person" would not have Verizon. My sister had a nicer toy phone in kindergarten.

As I stated previously I don't consider business "ripping people off." Companies exist to make a profit. VzW chose to do it this way. I wouldn't have gone th...(continues)

BigRob said:What is your deal??? Why are you so chipper abouta company ripping off hard working american people? You must be a bleeding heart liberal. Your statement just proves how uneducated Verizon subscribers are. They are not "world class" There phones suck, and here in Olando,FL their service sucks too. In case you aven't noticed, the "world class" people are infatuated with things. Expensive, nicelooking things with all the bells and whistles. The "world cLass person" would not have Verizon. My sister had a nicer toy phone in kindergarten.

As I stated previously I don't consider business "ripping people off." Companies exist to make a profit. VzW chose to do it

Umm, wouldn't he not be a bleeding-heart liberal if he didn't care about the little man and preferred the company instead? Might want to talk some poli-sci classes or listen to some talk radio before you go calling a capitalist a bleeding-heart liberal. Kind of an oxymoron there.

In my opinion, VZW isn't screwing the customers over. If the customer's felt they were paying too much, there wouldn't be 42 million of them and VZW would be forced to drop their prices in order to remain competitive and gain customers. Instead, they are the 2nd largest US wireless carrier and growing.

That's the way capitalism works. You offer a product for a price, if your price is too high, demand will be low. If that's the case, you lower your price u...(continues)

staiano said:But it's not like the phone is $60 and limited bluetooth. It's $300. Sounds like the Mercedes of the Verizon phones to me, both in price and how the company has been touting it.

Well, I was referring to the service in general. But I don't disagree. Excluding PDAs, smartphones, and blackberrys, it probably is the nicest phone currently.

Still, not sure what you mean. Do you mean to imply that if the phone were cheaper it would be somehow more acceptable to disable a BT profile? Why? The company admitted that the profile was disabled to prevent piracy of GIN downloads as we all suspected. The audiovox (UT Starcom) XV6600 from VzW has OBEX enabled because it is not GIN capable. So wh...(continues)

Nicest phone? That's pretty far fetched, considering all the GSM phones out on the market. It might be the best Verizon phone on the market. The camera is awful (and off center on most sold a few months ago), the physical size is too big, and the reception on my 4400 was much better. All on top of the Bluetooth issue. Obviously not getting what we pay for here. Give me a Nokia 6230 any day over this thing. Thank god I didn't pay for it! (and that my contract is up in 3 months!)

I don't agree with your comment Steve. I think you're not appreciating the whole situation here, and the fact that many of us were "burned" and misled as consumers.

For one, you need to look at the underlying reason as to why the Bluetooth was disabled. It wasn't for a technical reason or some issue with Brew licensing. Fact is, Verizon did it as a means to increase their revenue and FORCE people to use their absolutely stupid picture messaging service.

So how does "buyer beware" apply if I was specifically told by the Verizon rep that YES, the phone would allow me to connect to my computer and transfer images.

I was also then told by a Verizon technical support rep ALONG with a Motorola support rep that a patch was in the works ...(continues)

Steve, you must work for VZ. All this yappin. I agree with mlaruel. Even tohough I ended up not buying the phone, I still believe that Vz was wrong for disabling those features. I was also told by multiple reps that the phone was going to be able to transfer files. That feature is one of the soul purposes of BT. Then they take it away. Thats like selling a band new computer with/o a modem. Whats the point of having a computer if oyou cant connect to the internet. Excluding the feature almost makes BT pointless. VZ is very responsible for misleading customers. Many people was mislead, along with hundreds of other customers. VZ needs to stop playing there games. Some people think that this case is going to be dropped. There are laws that prohi...(continues)

"I don't agree with your comment Steve. I think you're not appreciating the whole situation here, and the fact that many of us were "burned" and misled as consumers. "

*I apologize, sir, but people get 'burned all the time. I just bought some Tide at the store that said it would get the ink stain out of my shirt. It didn't. I guess I got burned. Should I sue? No. Fact is, VzW has a right to disable OBEX for any reason they see fit.

"For one, you need to look at the underlying reason as to why the Bluetooth was disabled. It wasn't for a technical reason or some issue with Brew licensing. Fact is, Verizon did it as a means to increase their revenue and FORCE people to use their absolutely stupid picture messaging service. "

For one, you need to look at the underlying reason as to why the Bluetooth was disabled. It wasn't for a technical reason or some issue with Brew licensing. Fact is, Verizon did it as a means to increase their revenue and FORCE people to use their absolutely stupid picture messaging service.

I dont know why you guys wont take in the fact that if Verizon really wanted to force you to use their picture messaging then they wouldnt have had the TransFlash card on there. The TF card allows you to transfer images, ringtones, and movies to and from your phone. If they were trying to force you then you wouldnt see the TF card slot on it. Bluetooth OBEX is a luxury. Its for lazy people who do not w...(continues)

I think the operative statement here is that you "...bought a TF card that allowed me to do whatever I wanted with the phone." Basically, you were required to purchase additional equipment to do something the phone was designed to do natively. While you personally might not have a problem with this, it's pretty obvious that not everyone shares your point of view. This is why there's vanilla AND chocolate. And lawsuits.

Yeah but people would have had to buy a Bluetooth adapter for the computer. They would be "required" to do that if they wanted to transfer their files. But thats not the point I am really trying to make. I am saying that everyone thinks Verizon is forcing them to use their services. If they were doing so much "forcing" then why is the TF card there?

Not if the computer was already BT enabled, but the computer is NOT the issue, the phone IS. If I bought a Centrino laptop and found out that the WiFi had been disabled by the seller I'd have grounds to make a complaint because WiFi is integral to the Centrino platform and I have a reasonable expectation that the laptop will have it. The fact that I can purchase a PCMCIA 802.11B card to replace the innate functionality doesn't change the fact that the laptop was altered from its original form and purpose. As I said, if you don't have a problem with the solution you arrived at for this issue, fine, but it's not a requirement that everyone share your point of view.

I agree with you aleq, That **** aint right. Thats the same thing I was tryin to say. Just because this havent been a problem with the situation, let the people who have a problem with the situation support this issue. More people are dissapointed than most of yall think. VZ was wrong and they should pay. Think about this could be the beginnig to VZ. This can get VZ to think more of the customers than themselves

Woah now I didnt say it was a requirement. I again I am trying to say that VZW is not forcing anyone to use their services. You are right about one thing though...WiFi is an integral part of the Centrino line but they all come standard with built in WiFi. If you want to use computers as a comparison then look at it this way...If I bought a top of the line computer without WiFi, do I have the right to sue because mine didnt come with WiFi and Centrinos do? Now I know you are gonna say, "Well if my computer says that it has Wifi and I find out it doesnt then thats like the bluetooth issue." Well actually its not because bluetooth comes in several different forms (profiles). Microsoft has a bluetooth keyboard but is it not bluetooth because it ...(continues)

TheVerizonMan said:Microsoft has a bluetooth keyboard but is it not bluetooth because it says "connect to your computer wirelessly" and you cant transfer files? Is that lying to the consumer or misleading them?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does not the model of phone in question come from the manufacturer able to handle all the BT profiles? And is it only Verizon who has opted to exclude specific profiles? To my mind, if someone does a reasonable amount of research regarding the phone they will be left with the expectation that the handset will do all that the manufacturer built it to do, and that any amendment to that functionality should be unequivocally stated, before purchase, by the vendor. It seems that enough people feel they were not adequately informed, and this is why it's going to a court to decide in future how issues such as this should be handled.

Toyotas are manufactured in Japan but does that mean the manual and writing all over the car should be Japanese? No, wait that didnt make sense. Hold on...........Ahh here we go...ok.....Reality TV shows blur out and bleep out anything and everything before it is shown to us. So we should have the right to sue the cable companies (Verizon) because they edit out certain parts (OBEX)? But they would get sued by other organizations (BREW) for letting curse words and body parts fly all over the place unedited (OBEX). But the cable companies (Verizon) has other alternatives for giving the consumer what they want by offering unedited viewing (Transflash Card)for an additional fee (Price of TF Card)! Whew...

TheVerizonMan said:Toyotas are manufactured in Japan but does that mean the manual and writing all over the car should be Japanese? No, wait that didnt make sense. Hold on...........Ahh here we go...ok.....Reality TV shows blur out and bleep out anything and everything before it is shown to us. So we should have the right to sue the cable companies (Verizon) because they edit out certain parts (OBEX)? But they would get sued by other organizations (BREW) for letting curse words and body parts fly all over the place unedited (OBEX). But the cable companies (Verizon) has other alternatives for giving the consumer what they want by offering unedited viewing (Transflash Card)for an additional fee (Price of TF Card)! Whew...

TheVerizonMan said:Toyotas are manufactured in Japan but does that mean the manual and writing all over the car should be Japanese? No, wait that didnt make sense. Hold on...........Ahh here we go...ok.....Reality TV shows blur out and bleep out anything and everything before it is shown to us. So we should have the right to sue the cable companies (Verizon) because they edit out certain parts (OBEX)? But they would get sued by other organizations (BREW) for letting curse words and body parts fly all over the place unedited (OBEX). But the cable companies (Verizon) has other alternatives for giving the consumer what they want by offering unedited viewing (Transflash Card)for an additional fee (Price of TF Card)! Whew...

For one, you need to look at the underlying reason as to why the Bluetooth was disabled. It wasn't for a technical reason or some issue with Brew licensing. Fact is, Verizon did it as a means to increase their revenue and FORCE people to use their absolutely stupid picture messaging service.

Verizon didn't force anybody to do anything. If you don't research how a carrier's data services are set up before you purchase the phone then you're an idiot. Period.